BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 664
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
664 (Hertzberg)
As Amended June 24, 2015
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 40-0
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Water |13-2 |Levine, Bigelow, |Beth Gaines, Harper |
| | |Dababneh, Dahle, | |
| | |Dodd, Cristina | |
| | |Garcia, Gomez, Lopez, | |
| | |Mathis, Medina, | |
| | |Rendon, Salas, | |
| | |Williams | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |16-1 |Gomez, Bigelow, |Gallagher |
| | |Bloom, Bonta, | |
| | |Calderon, Chang, | |
| | |Nazarian, Eggman, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Jones, Quirk, | |
SB 664
Page 2
| | |Rendon, Wagner, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Requires an urban water supplier to include a seismic
risk assessment and mitigation plan in its urban water
management plan (UWMP) or allows an urban water supplier to
submit its most recent federal disaster mitigation plan as an
alternative if that plan addresses seismic risk.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires all urban water suppliers to prepare and adopt UWMPs,
update them every five years, and submit them to the
Department of Water Resources (DWR). Among other
requirements, UWMPs must:
a) Provide a description of the service area of the
supplier;
b) Identify and quantify water resources; and,
c) Make water use projections.
2)Requires UWMPs to be adopted or updated in years ending in
"zero" and "five."
3)Specifies that compliance with the Urban Water Management
Planning Act is a prerequisite to receiving state funding for
water projects and programs.
4)Requires State, Tribal, and local governments to develop a
hazard mitigation plan as a condition for receiving certain
types of non-emergency disaster assistance.
SB 664
Page 3
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis:
1)Potential cost pressures in the millions of dollars to various
bond funds beginning in 2020 for seismic mitigation projects.
Projects in an UWMP may be included in an Integrated Regional
Water Management Plan (IRWMP). The creation and
implementation of IRWMPs are eligible for funding under
various water bonds, including Proposition 1 (2014). As this
bill will indirectly allow for the inclusion of seismic
upgrade projects in IWRMPs, this bill imposes additional cost
pressures to fund such projects.
2)Minor and absorbable costs to DWR to update their guidelines
to reflect the new requirements.
COMMENTS: This bill requires UWMPs to assess seismic risks to
the water system and either develop a mitigation plan for those
risks or, as an alternative, submit their most recent local
hazard mitigation plan or multihazard mitigation plan adopted in
compliance with the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA
2000), if that plan addresses seismic risks. The DMA 2000
provides the legal basis for Federal Emergency Management Act
mitigation planning requirements for state, local and Indian
Tribal governments as a condition of mitigation grant
assistance.
The author states that identifying seismic vulnerabilities and
outlining measures to mitigate those risks is needed in order to
strengthen California's water infrastructure, making communities
across the State better prepared in the event of an earthquake.
SB 664
Page 4
The author adds that many quakes have already resulted in
substantial water system damage and challenge for delivering
water for firefighting and drinking. The author cites to the
1994 Northridge Earthquake, which left 57 dead, more than 9,000
injured, and caused more than $40 billion in property damage.
The author notes that due to the Northridge quake residents
lined up to receive bottled water after local officials warned
them not to drink the tap water following the rupture of several
mains in the San Fernando Valley.
Other supporters state that earthquakes are a significant
concern in California and can damage water infrastructure.
Supporters add that by requiring UWMPs to include seismic risk
assessment and mitigation plans, this bill will assist water
agencies, the public, and the state in understanding the impact
an earthquake may have on water supply to inform seismic safety
and emergency preparedness decisions. Supporters add by
requiring such information this bill will make seismic-related
projects eligible to compete for potential IRWMP grant funding.
Opponents state that UWMPs are prepared every five years to
support long-term resources planning and ensure adequate water
supplies for existing and future demands therefore they are not
the proper vehicle to address seismic vulnerability. Opponents
add that seismic risk assessments and mitigation plans are
costly and timely to produce and may not need to be prepared
every five years under the UWMP schedule. Opponents caution
that this bill could introduce new liability issues if, after an
earthquake, capital improvement programs don't deliver what was
articulated in mitigation plans.
Analysis Prepared by:
Tina Leahy / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN:
0001667
SB 664
Page 5